Copyright and the digital revolution

[Wibble]

You need to be living in a hole in the ground not to have noticed the impact of digital downloaded material of various sorts.

It seems to me that the powers that be and to an even greater extent the large multinationals that make/produce/distribute music and films and by extent DVD rental chains and TV have totally an utterly failed to get a grip of the changes.

The "solution" to illegal downloading seems to be a combination of legal threats and actions against individuals in "friendly" jurisdictions and lobbying of clueless governments to make ISP filter and/or be responsible for their users. Are they also planning to penalise phone companies or mail companies if people use their services for nefarious purposes? I don't think so. It is the equivalent of making 4x4 manufacturers responsible for ram raiding.

Here are some fairly random thoughts.

1) ISP filtering. No I don't want my child to be stalked, raped and murdered by a paedophile but I also value the freedom that the internet provides - do you really think we are stupid enough to think that those are the only 2 alternatives? If I want to filter content I will do so on my computer thank you very much big brother. Not to mention the huge slowing of speed that large scale filtering will result in. Estimates of the effect of the proposed filtering here in Oz are in the order of an 80% reduction in speed at peak times. I suppose that is one way of stopping people viewing stuff - make the whole thing grind to a halt.

2) Big business: Film and even more so music companies are probably terrified that they will become irrelevant now that a mac and a few mikes in a quiet room can produce professional quality music which can be distributed direct via the internet. Most of their reason for exiting and thus their profit could just swirl down the e-plug hole. If indie bands can figure a way to make a small profit from each download the days of the mega record companies are numbered IMO. So the battle is mainly about corporate profits and little to do with copyright.

3) Distribution: Surely there is a way that digital stuff can be distributed in a way that we can all afford it and gives the artists at least as much, if not more, return? If I could buy an annual licence to download everything and anything i want I would buy it as long as it wasn't stupidly priced. If they don't do something soon an entire generation of consumers and the next one will be used to taking what they want for free anyway. Not to mention the problem of creating a generation where the concept of what is theft is more than a little grey. Perhaps make some stuff free in rubbish quality, make ordinary quality stuff cheap and HD/BluRay available at premium prices - in the long run this could all be through digital download. Or something like that.

4) DVD rentals: My local Blockbuster just closed and when it did I realised that a friend of mine hadn't rented there for over a year whereas he used to spend $20pw on films. Head in sand?

5) TV companies: Don't they realise that if you feck people around they can now lose customers? Cut series in half due to ratings periods ending, throwing the odd unannounced repeat in during a main run to elongate the run, ramping up the number of ads towards the end of episodes etc etc - basically treating us like cnuts who will keep on taking no matter what. The rush to pay TV seems to have left them clueless and digital downloads even more so. They really need to treat their customers as just that or there is a crisis in free to air TV looming.

Well that was a bit random but there you go.

 

[Leg-End]

The same people moaning about 'illegal' file sharers are the ones that haven't utilised the potential of the internet in this high speed age. They are too busy worrying about where they are losing out instead of embracing the technology.

 

[Count Duckula]

The same people moaning about 'illegal' file sharers are the ones that haven't utilised the potential of the internet in this high speed age. They are too busy worrying about where they are losing out instead of embracing the technology.

I get what you're saying, but there's nothing 'illegal' about it.

It's illegal. People that download things are effectively stealing them, but I do completely agree that the music and film industries are foolish to think they can stop this rather than adapting to them. However, people that solely blame the backwards nature of those industries always seem to be the type who are trying to justify themselves with the logic that downloading these things isn't stealing them.

 

[Leg-End]

It is stealing, plain and simple yes. But in my opinion if we take music as an example, the prices have not changed in accordance to the way in which music is now purchased. I am no expert but surely if an album is hosted online, let say iTunes for arguments sake, surely it is cheaper for the record company to do this than to manufacturer and distribute music on a physical format? If it is then why are new albums still £7.99 for download?

I think iTunes has it right, 79p a song that is very reasonable and I have spent close to £50 on iTunes by using this but thats only if you want 1 song. I still think the price of an album is too expensive when brought through download purchase, the middle man has been cut out and replaced by iTunes which I assume takes a cut too but surely less.

 

[crappycraperson]

I agree with all of that.

Another point is in the current age of internet, people want things on demand. There is a huge demand for yank TV shows and in most countries series are aired a long time after airing in US. I am simply not going to wait 3 months to one year to watch a single episode.

People are not adverse of paying on the internet to get the stuff they want as well. A large number of people use services such as Rapidshare while a lot pay even more for newsgroup access. It is up to companies to come up with such services. Apple is already running a very successful itunes store.

 

[Leg-End]

Another point is in the current age of internet, people want things on demand. There is a huge demand for yank TV shows and in most countries series are aired a long time after airing in US. I am simply not going to wait 3 months to one year to watch a single episode.

Excellent point. Especially if you look around on the internet/forums, it tends to spoil the fun as I always seemingly find out what has happened in the timeframe since the USA shows aired to the times it gets to England. I know iTunes now do tv shows, but I think they limit the release of programs according to area?

 

[crappycraperson]

Itunes charge too much for a single episode of a TV show. The amount I watch, I would have to shell out something like 100 dollars per month. As wibbs said, if they come up with some annual subscription service then, I may consider it.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

2) Big business: Film and even more so music companies are probably terrified that they will become irrelevant now that a mac and a few mikes in a quiet room can produce professional quality music which can be distributed direct via the internet. Most of their reason for exiting and thus their profit could just swirl down the e-plug hole. If indie bands can figure a way to make a small profit from each download the days of the mega record companies are numbered IMO. So the battle is mainly about corporate profits and little to do with copyright.

Hey Wibble, very interesting topic and exactly the industry that I work in. I work in media and copyright for the biggest music publisher (that's the song-writing part of copyright rather than the recording part) and am hoping to start a masters in intellectual property law part-time next year.

While you're right that record labels are losing lots and lots of revenue, music publishing is in fact doing rather well at the moment. The decline in mechanical sales (CD's) is dramatic and the challenge publishers are faced with is to make up for the lost revenue by increasing synchronisation licensing. Licensing music for films, commercials and increasingly video games, now accounts for nearly a third of our business.

Traditional record labels are increasingly becoming unworkable business models, and we are currently in a exciting time where no one really knows how to structure their business. My guess is that the industry will try and consolidate as much as possible. We are already starting to see this with Live Nation signing artists such as Madonna to all-inclusive deals; owning all her rights regarding touring as well as recording.

Long term, the key is the ISP's though. If the industry can agree profitable and robust multi-user licences for the use of music, then the future will look a whole lot brighter. For too long the industry has had a "no you can't do that" attitude to licensing, which is nonsense. In the end we are here to grant licenses, albeit without compromising the market. The tide is changing slowly though, and the recent settlement in this last year with Youtube shows that these kind of blanket licenses can be achieved. Although the fee was smaller than we all hoped for, it sure is a start to exploiting the new market.

You might think that all this is good for the artist; more exploitation equals more money? Well, that's far from guaranteed as yet. The trouble with blanket licenses (such as struck with Youtube or potentially ISPs) is that the data on user-generated content is far from reliable with regards to copyright owners. Basically there is this big pot of money which needs to be carved up between the industry and no one has a clue how to do it. At the moment each publisher gets their share of the pot based on 'market share'. And market share is calculated based on mechanical sales! So it is key to remain big in CD sales if you want a share of the digital profits! A crazy situation.

And what is worse with regards to the distribution of this money by the actual publishers and labels themselves, is that the vast majority of this new income is not accompanied by good data as to the artist responsible. Therefore, most of the money just sits in the company accounts and doesn't get paid through to the artist at all. And the music industry, being the sneaky underhand buggers we are, were careful to term this new income stream 'black box income', i.e. unaccompanied by official ownership data. And again, being the music industry ruled by lawyers, no artist is paid on these new blanket licenses (such as Youtube) unless they have a specific 'black box' clause in their contract. And very, very few of them do. Although managers are increasingly negotiating tougher deals in this area now.

Oops, sorry for the long post...I have a day off and I sit here writing about work. What a cnut.

 

[Count Duckula]

Hey Wibble, very interesting topic and exactly the industry that I work in. I work in media and copyright for the biggest music publisher (that's the song-writing part of copyright rather than the recording part) and am hoping to start a masters in intellectual property law part-time next year.

While you're right that record labels are losing lots and lots of revenue, music publishing is in fact doing rather well at the moment. The decline in mechanical sales (CD's) is dramatic and the challenge publishers are faced with is to make up for the lost revenue by increasing synchronisation licensing. Licensing music for films, commercials and increasingly video games, now accounts for nearly a third of our business.

Traditional record labels are increasingly becoming unworkable business models, and we are currently in a exciting time where no one really knows how to structure their business. My guess is that the industry will try and consolidate as much as possible. We are already starting to see this with Live Nation signing artists such as Madonna to all-inclusive deals; owning all her rights regarding touring as well as recording.

Long term, the key is the ISP's though. If the industry can agree profitable and robust multi-user licences for the use of music, then the future will look a whole lot brighter. For too long the industry has had a "no you can't do that" attitude to licensing, which is nonsense. In the end we are here to grant licenses, albeit without compromising the market. The tide is changing slowly though, and the recent settlement in this last year with Youtube shows that these kind of blanket licenses can be achieved. Although the fee was smaller than we all hoped for, it sure is a start to exploiting the new market.

You might think that all this is good for the artist; more exploitation equals more money? Well, that's far from guaranteed as yet. The trouble with blanket licenses (such as struck with Youtube or potentially ISPs) is that the data on user-generated content is far from reliable with regards to copyright owners. Basically there is this big pot of money which needs to be carved up between the industry and no one has a clue how to do it. At the moment each publisher gets their share of the pot based on 'market share'. And market share is calculated based on mechanical sales! So it is key to remain big in CD sales if you want a share of the digital profits! A crazy situation.

And what is worse with regards to the distribution of this money by the actual publishers and labels themselves, is that the vast majority of this new income is not accompanied by good data as to the artist responsible. Therefore, most of the money just sits in the company accounts and doesn't get paid through to the artist at all. And the music industry, being the sneaky underhand buggers we are, were careful to term this new income stream 'black box income', i.e. unaccompanied by official ownership data. And again, being the music industry ruled by lawyers, no artist is paid on these new blanket licenses (such as Youtube) unless they have a specific 'black box' clause in their contract. And very, very few of them do. Although managers are increasingly negotiating tougher deals in this area now.

Oops, sorry for the long post...I have a day off and I sit here writing about work. What a cnut.

Very interesting indeed. Didn't know any of that

Do you think a similar thing might be happening with the big film and television studios? I remember a while back when the only industry really suffering was the music industry, because songs are so much smaller in filesize. But now, I guess, huge numbers of people are downloading and streaming both television series and film, too, so it's affecting a whole new raft of entertainment.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It is stealing, plain and simple yes. But in my opinion if we take music as an example, the prices have not changed in accordance to the way in which music is now purchased. I am no expert but surely if an album is hosted online, let say iTunes for arguments sake, surely it is cheaper for the record company to do this than to manufacturer and distribute music on a physical format? If it is then why are new albums still £7.99 for download?

I think iTunes has it right, 79p a song that is very reasonable and I have spent close to £50 on iTunes by using this but thats only if you want 1 song. I still think the price of an album is too expensive when brought through download purchase, the middle man has been cut out and replaced by iTunes which I assume takes a cut too but surely less.

The margins on digital downloads aren't as high as you would think. Apple take the majority with the remainder split between the label and the publisher. At the moment it is surprisingly not that profitable for the music industry itself.

The key is the bundle. The long player album was a beautiful business ploy; have a couple of decent tracks that people want to buy and charge ten quid for them and eight others lesser tracks. The trouble with iTunes is that it is unbundled. Whereas in the past you could rely on the consumer to buy an albums worth of songs, now you're lucky if they buy more than a couple. It's slowly becoming a singles market, and that is sad from a business point of view, but also from a creative point of view for genuine bands.

Sooner or later the labels are going to have to try and break Apple's monopoly on digital downloads. Apple refuse to allow differential pricing, and the labels are desperate to charge more for the big selling songs, and lower the price of the rest. At the moment though, Apple insists on blanket pricing.

 

[Leg-End]

So its not inconceivable that in the future labels will cut out the middle man altogether and offer the service themselves? If it were to mean cheaper music then why not but the iTunes stranglehold will be very tough to break at this stage won't it.

 

[noodlehair]

I've got no sympathy for the music industry on this.

If everyone downloaded all their music for free, record companies and major labels would either have to rethink their streategy, or disappear quickly, but in the meantime, people would still write music, and people who are good enough at it would still make a fair few bob through gigs, merchandise, and eventually advertising. IMO it'd be a huge improvement on the music industry at present, which is full of money grabbing cnuts, and talentless gimps who've wormed through in place of someone better because they have a pretty face.

Film industry's a bit of a different matter, but when you've got people being paid something like £40million to appear in one film, it's obviously going to go tits up sooner or later.

You feel for the retail outlets who are the (potentially) innocent victims in all this, but that's always going to be the risk when you're running a business. The clever ones are those trying to find a way of making the situation work for them, rather than attempting to somehow change things back again.



Say you have a train, everyone who gets on the train needs to buy a ticket, until one day it changes, and you can choose whether to buy a ticket, or just get on for free

who's the biggest idiot, the guy who gets on for free, the guy who still pays for a ticket, or the guy who thinks he can still make the same profit by selling tickets?

 

[crappycraperson]

I've got no sympathy for the music industry on this.

If everyone downloaded all their music for free, record companies and major labels would either have to rethink their streategy, or disappear quickly, but in the meantime, people would still write music, and people who are good enough at it would still make a fair few bob through gigs, merchandise, and eventually advertising. IMO it'd be a huge improvement on the music industry at present, which is full of money grabbing cnuts, and talentless gimps who've wormed through in place of someone better because they have a pretty face.

Film industry's a bit of a different matter, but when you've got people being paid something like £40million to appear in one film, it's obviously going to go tits up sooner or later.

Yes, this bring open up another debate. Actors/musicians/studios/record labels simply do not deserve to get paid as much as they do now. This downloading or "stealing" is a type of market force to bring down not only the current set up but also the revenues, salaries of everyone associated with entertainment industry.

 

[VidaRed]

Say you have a train, everyone who gets on the train needs to buy a ticket, until one day it changes, and you can choose whether to buy a ticket, or just get on for free

who's the biggest idiot, the guy who gets on for free, the guy who still pays for a ticket, or the guy who thinks he can still make the same profit by selling tickets?

according to that im the clever guy.

 

[kelvinhole]

I've got no sympathy for the music industry on this.

If everyone downloaded all their music for free, record companies and major labels would either have to rethink their streategy, or disappear quickly, but in the meantime, people would still write music, and people who are good enough at it would still make a fair few bob through gigs, merchandise, and eventually advertising. IMO it'd be a huge improvement on the music industry at present, which is full of money grabbing cnuts, and talentless gimps who've wormed through in place of someone better because they have a pretty face.

Film industry's a bit of a different matter, but when you've got people being paid something like £40million to appear in one film, it's obviously going to go tits up sooner or later.

You feel for the retail outlets who are the (potentially) innocent victims in all this, but that's always going to be the risk when you're running a business. The clever ones are those trying to find a way of making the situation work for them, rather than attempting to somehow change things back again.



Say you have a train, everyone who gets on the train needs to buy a ticket, until one day it changes, and you can choose whether to buy a ticket, or just get on for free

who's the biggest idiot, the guy who gets on for free, the guy who still pays for a ticket, or the guy who thinks he can still make the same profit by selling tickets?

Spot on, Noods.

How does the saying go again? "Your failed business model is not my problem."

 

[x42bn6]

An industry where Britney Spears continues to sell albums is an industry that really needs to rethink what they are doing.

 

[Plechazunga]

Say you have a train, everyone who gets on the train needs to buy a ticket, until one day it changes, and you can choose whether to buy a ticket, or just get on for free

who's the biggest idiot, the guy who gets on for free, the guy who still pays for a ticket, or the guy who thinks he can still make the same profit by selling tickets?

Well, that currently is the situation on many trains. Most people still buy tickets... admittedly you don't, you fecking thief, but eventually you're going to get done.

I agree though, I have no sympathy with the music industry. The utter wankers were charging 17 quid for a CD at one point, which was when I stopped buying music. I bet they cost about 10p each to make. Twats.

I don't download it either, mind, because I still haven't figured out how. People are always sending me sites that supposedly work for macs, but it always ends up with me sitting there for about 3 hours in front of a screen saying "no seeds" or some such shite.

So I just listen to all my old records over and over again. It's got so boring that I've basically stopped listening to music.

Bugger.

 

[Don16]

I can't be arsed reading through the various arguments, but I will never, EVER feel guilty about stealing from multi millionaires.

 

[noodlehair]

Well, that currently is the situation on many trains. Most people still buy tickets... admittedly you don't, you fecking thief, but eventually you're going to get done.

To be fair, I only skipped buying tickets when I couldn't really afford to spend £70 a week travelling in and out of London to interviews, exams and the like, and also once when the ticket lady wondered off instead of serving me as the train was pulling in.

I agree though, I have no sympathy with the music industry. The utter wankers were charging 17 quid for a CD at one point, which was when I stopped buying music. I bet they cost about 10p each to make. Twats.

I don't download it either, mind, because I still haven't figured out how. People are always sending me sites that supposedly work for macs, but it always ends up with me sitting there for about 3 hours in front of a screen saying "no seeds" or some such shite.

So I just listen to all my old records over and over again. It's got so boring that I've basically stopped listening to music.

Bugger.

Hehe. You're the guy who couldn't figure out how to get on the train

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

An unfortunate incident where I did not know how to get off the train once left me stranded in Kildare Town.